Written Corrective Feedback- Getting it Right

Written corrective feedback (WCF) can be defined as a response made to a written linguistic error made by second language (L2) learners. It can be viewed as a more challenging task than other forms of corrective feedback (CF) due to the amount of time it may take to respond to written errors, particularly in tasks such as written essays or long form essay questions on a test. As with other forms of CF, WCF is conducted by teachers not only to correct errors, defined by Nassaji (2010) as those “made with a lack of knowledge” (p. 80), but also mistakes, defined as “performance errors” (p. 80), to understand how “this practice can be made effective in notably improving their students’ linguistic accuracy” (Kartchava, 2019, p. 1). This is done to help students notice their areas of weakness so that they may attend to these and as a result, improve accuracy over time. While many teachers agree on the importance of WCF as a form of feedback, there are varying views on how to deliver WCF effectively (van Beuginen, 2021, p. 355). While these views range from specific error correction to correcting everything, each has special characteristics that work in an educator’s and a student’s favour. This blog post attempts to bring teaching practitioners up to date on the varying views regarding WCF and encourages practitioners to embrace experimentation and flexibility.    

There are a few important perspectives in SLA research on WCF that should be considered. First, teachers should focus on explaining their feedback choices, scope, and reasons to their students for each assignment where WCF is given (Lee, 2019). This has been shown to be extremely effective in helping students’ approach WCF with a more positive outlook. It also eases communication and sets up both teacher and student roles and responsibilities from the start. Second, there is no “one size fits all” (Bitchener, 2021, p. 220), meaning that there is no right or wrong way to approach WCF as long as feedback is given. Third, teachers should account for individual differences and any environmental or contextual factors across learners that may impede or facilitate the way they process CF. Experience with one type of CF over another, preference for one type over another, learners’ working memory, language learning aptitude and analytic ability are all individual factors that should be considered. External variables such as choice of WCF type dictated by an institution and how a teacher is perceived by students in different cultures may also have an impact on the way learners’ approach WCF (Bitchener, 2021).

One method used by many teachers to improve noticing is negotiation, defined by Nassaji (2017) as “a process that takes place during student–teacher interaction and is delivered through the back-and-forth interactional strategies used to reach a solution to a problem in the course of communication” (pp. 115-116). There are two types of negotiation, one in which clarification of meaning is negotiated and another focusing on form, in which students are made aware of language problems. Nassaji (2017) presents several studies in favour of negotiated feedback and argues that learners are not only more active in their learning but “take a more active part in the feedback process and have more opportunities to attend to and process the feedback provided in response to their error” (p. 123).

While Nassaji argues for the usefulness of negotiated feedback, van Beuningen (2021) amalgamates different arguments that there is no perfect model for WCF. These arguments contain research on both focused feedback (in which a teacher gives selective feedback on one or several specific error categories in a student’s writing) and unfocused feedback (in which intensive feedback is given on a wider range of errors). Most teachers already know that, “it is neither necessary nor desirable for a teacher to respond to every problem on every draft of a student essay” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 2005, p. 131).  Bitchener (2008) and Sheen (2007) argue that since learners have limited linguistic cognitive abilities, too much CF on a range of errors will just add to frustration and possible confusion, especially at lower levels. Therefore, focusing on a few target errors is more conducive to L2 acquisition. The idea that “less is more” (i.e., focused feedback), according to Lee (2019), “represents out of the box thinking” (p. 525) as an effective way to approach WCF.  Still, unfocused WCF research may give advanced learners the information they want and need to improve their writing skills in revisions of the same draft, but not necessarily in new writing tasks (Truscott & Hsu, 2008), so as van Beuningin’s (2021) research indicates, unfocused feedback might be more appropriate for advanced learners.

To summarize, it has been shown that there are varying views on how to deliver WCF. What we know is that students expect it as a part of their L2 acquisition process, most enjoy negotiating their feedback, and that different types of WCF have varying effects for different types of learners. This indicates that teachers should be flexible and open to experimentation when providing WCF. While there are many approaches to WCF that are neither right nor wrong, perfect or imperfect, the fact is that there are many options for delivering WCF, and teachers should use these to their advantage as much as possible in accordance with the needs of their students.

Shrouk Abdelgafar

Neal Power

References

Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 102–118.

Bitchener, J. (2021). Written corrective feedback. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Corrective Feedback in Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 207-225). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

Bitchener, J., & Storch, N. (2016). Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development. In Written Corrective Feedback for L2 Development (p. 156).

Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime?). Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 49–62.

Ferris, D., & Hedgcock, J. ( 2005). Teaching ESL composition: Purpose, process and practice. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kartchava, E. (2019). Noticing oral corrective feedback in the second language classroom: background and evidence. Rowman & Littlefield.

Lee, I. (2019). Teacher written corrective feedback: Less is more. Language Teaching, 52(4), 524-536

Lyster, R., & Saito, K. (2010). Oral feedback in classroom SLA: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(2), 265-302.

Nassaji, H. (2017). Negotiated oral feedback in response to written errors. In H. Nassaji & E. Kartchava (Eds.), Corrective feedback in second language teaching and learning: Research, theory, applications, implications (pp. 114-128). New York: Routledge.

Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41, 255–283.